- From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:34:43 +0900
- To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
- CC: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, "plh@w3.org" <plh@w3.org>, "Peter Saint-Andre (stpeter@stpeter.im)" <stpeter@stpeter.im>, "Pete Resnick (presnick@qualcomm.com)" <presnick@qualcomm.com>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
On 2012/10/16 5:00, Ted Hardie wrote: > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Larry Masinter<masinter@adobe.com> wrote: > >> I think that's the bigger implication -- the vision that the web supplants all other (network) apps; for some systems, "URLs to non-Web things" is an empty set. >> >> My understanding of Peter's survey of other specs that make reference to RFC 3987 was that there weren't any whose implementations relied on anything other than the browser to do URL/IRI resolution and processing. >> > > First, can you provide a pointer to the survey? > > Second, while there may be systems for which the only handle for URIs > is the the browser, In my understanding, something like the Google Chrome OS, where there's not much of a distinction between browser and OS, would qualify here. But then such a system might not handle all schemes; maybe it wouldn't handle the snmp: example below. > there are certainly systems for which that is not > true. To pick one produced close to when URIs became a full standard, > look at RFC 4088 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4088). I doubt there > are many browsers which dereference URIs like > snmp://example.com/bridge1;800002b804616263 with their own handlers. Yes. And there are many URI schemes where some browsers have handlers, but others don't. I may be wrong on one or two of these, but e.g. Opera has a built-in mailer, but Firefox or IE don't. Even with registerProtocolHandler, a scheme first has to be registered before it's taken oven by a browser (specifically, by a certain Web page through that browser). So there may be quite a lot of systems where theoretically (if the user registered every scheme with a web page), it would be possible to handle everything in the browser only, but practically, that wouldn't be the case. > URIs used internally to systems outside the web may not be easily seen > in a web-based corpus, but that does not mean that they are not there, > nor that shifting the parsing rules won't effect them. Yes indeed. A lot of what happens on the Web is very public. A lot of what happens otherwise isn't very public, but there is still a lot of that around. Regards, Martin.
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2012 04:35:15 UTC